Also vote NO on any motion that could also arise for the expulsion of Dennis Pagen and Marty Deviette for their testimony concerning an injured USHPA paragliding student’s law suit against Air California Adventures. (ACA)

Allow the San Diego local court to sort out the dispute between ACA and Bob K. before entertaining any expulsion for alleged wrong doing. So far Bob K. has prevailed in court.

In connection with your "PS", I let my u$hPa membership lapse just a little over two years ago. Bob K (who ISN'T trying to destroy the u$hPa!) has repeatedly encouraged me to rejoin. Partly so I might be able to once again fly my local sites that are covered by u$hPa's Site Insurance. But Bob also thinks it good to have good people as members of the u$hPa. I would agree with that, but my reasons for leaving the "association" are pretty complicated and include the commission of Fraud on their part.

Still, you need to be a member to have any voice in their NFP Corporation. Good luck with your Open Letter!

That's a very thoughtfully worded letter, Bill. As you say, let the court sort it out - they will be a lot more informed than we are at this remove. (I'm sure that Bob is right in this case, but I could be accused of bias towards my friend.) Good luck to the good guys in this situation!-Robin

Also vote NO on any motion that could also arise for the expulsion of Dennis Pagen and Marty Deviette for their testimony concerning an injured USHPA paragliding student’s law suit against Air California Adventures. (ACA)

Allow the San Diego local court to sort out the dispute between ACA and Bob K. before entertaining any expulsion for alleged wrong doing. So far Bob K. has prevailed in court.

Bill, you make a good point about the u$hPa going after BobK in the middle of his battle with the City of San Diego and the gliderport over his rights as a citizen. The u$hPa, having sent their lawyer to side with the plaintiffs, know full well that ganging up on him like this places an unfair burden on BobK. To me, BobK represents any member of the organization who might fall into disfavor for his political views but has not really provided substantial cause for expulsion, which should only be put forward for genuine safety violations. Their actions are shameful and unworthy of a pilot's association. Likewise are the pilots who sit back and do nothing, or worse, side with the authoritarian agenda.

The u$hPa, having sent their lawyer to side with the plaintiffs, . . .

Actually their lawyer went to side with the negligent defendants (AKA, Air California Adventure). It would have been great if Tim Herr had gone to help the injured USHPA member student PG pilot and her lawyers.

And it may be unfair to say that the u$hPa sent Tim Herr. If you go to the Herr law firm web site, the point is made that Herr is a LEGAL EXPERT in sport (HG and PG related) litigation.

I don't doubt that Air California Adventure Inc. sent for him (or should I say, Herr?). The fact that Herr took the job (in my view as a layman) seems to fall into the "conflict of interest" category. If correct, that would be a breach of legal ethics - carrying a potential of being disbarred. The conflict of interest lies on Herr's opposing legal position against an injured u$hPa member pilot.

One source has mentioned that the u$hPa's insurance carrier may be the same as ACA Inc.'s. That creates the potential that Herr was sent to defend ACA Inc. by that insurance carrier. But that wouldn't absolve him of potential conflict of interest issues.

Well, I admit I can't figure this out. One thing that really throws me is that BobK says he was interviewed by the u$hPa Secret Society Corporation's lawyer who was siding with ACA. To me, this raises all sorts of red flags and legal contradictions for continuing litigation. What the hell is the u$hPa Secret Society Corporation doing? They behave like their friend$ at the gliderport are the real u$hPa Secret Society Corporation and members like Bob aren't. And BTW, what was it exactly that BobK is supposed to have done to merit expulsion? (I keep asking this, even after reading the u$hPa Secret Society Corporation's president's crazy letter of April 14 - and so does BobK.)

It's pretty clear to me that the u$hPa Secret Society Corporation has gone over to the Dark Side and is using authoritarian tactics and legal obfuscations to make mountains out of molehills when it suits their purposes.

Who wants to be a part of this?

Talk about putting your foot in it! I think a membership vote of no confidence in the u$hPa Secret Society Corporation is needed before things progress any farther. This could be done quickly by the chapters.

The u$hPa, having sent their lawyer to side with the plaintiffs, . . .

Actually their lawyer went to side with the negligent defendants (AKA, Air California Adventure). It would have been great if Tim Herr had gone to help the injured USHPA member student PG pilot and her lawyers.

Actually, I think Rick was right originally. At my "workplace violence restraining order" case, USHPA's lawyer sat with Air California Adventure who was the plaintiff in that case. I'm sorry I didn't catch this earlier ... I've been busy writing up my USHPA expulsion defense.

Also, some of Wingspan's confusion might have come from the role reversal between Tim Herr acting for Air California Adventure as the defendant in the Hamby lawsuit (when Tim Herr grilled me for 8 hours) and Tim Herr sitting with Air California Adventure during the workplace violence case against me (when Air California Adventure was the plaintiff. It is a little confusing ... unless you've lived it.

RickMasters wrote:One thing that really throws me is that BobK says he was interviewed by the u$hPa Secret Society Corporation's lawyer who was siding with ACA. To me, this raises all sorts of red flags and legal contradictions for continuing litigation. What the hell is the u$hPa Secret Society Corporation doing? They behave like their friend$ at the gliderport are the real u$hPa Secret Society Corporation and members like Bob aren't. And BTW, what was it exactly that BobK is supposed to have done to merit expulsion? (I keep asking this, even after reading the u$hPa Secret Society Corporation's president's crazy letter of April 14 - and so does BobK.)

It's pretty clear to me that the u$hPa Secret Society Corporation has gone over to the Dark Side and is using authoritarian tactics and legal obfuscations to make mountains out of molehills when it suits their purposes.

Who wants to be a part of this?

Talk about putting your foot in it! I think a membership vote of no confidence in the u$hPa Secret Society Corporation is needed before things progress any farther. This could be done quickly by the chapters.